Memory Alpha:Ten Forward/Archive 2005
Geography This subject is at the moment IMHO not at all well organised in MA. Just now I tried to find out how Europe was geographically aligned in Star Trek. Hadn't I known to look at Earth, it would have taken me some time to find. There needs to come some sort of navigational reference to geography, both of Earth as well as other planets, such as Bajor. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 11:07, 2 Nov 2004 (CET) Holodeck Characters Since there seems to be a list of virtually everything else, would it be a good idea to create a list of holodeck characters? It's not like there isn't enough of them for a list. --Brian M 19:44, 16 Nov 2004 (CET) : Seems sensible. -- Toddas 00:35, 30 Jan 2005 (CET) Categories So... what are these, why do they matter, and what do we do with them? Captain Mike mentioned them in a VfD discussion once, and I see them used on Wikipedia... -- Steve 03:36, 7 Dec 2004 (CET) :In MA/de we are currently testing them, so far they are quite handy, but we already had to move some categories and delete others. Best is you check Memory Alpha:Category tree and Memory Alpha talk:Category tree -- Kobi 17:59, 7 Dec 2004 (CET) ::Would there be any objections to my creating categories for episode types based on primary storyline? For instance, Klingon, Romance, First Contact, Medical, War, Romulan, Ferengi, Cardassian, Bajoran Religion, Borg, Vulcan, Character Death. Alison9 08:17, 13 Jan 2005 (CET) :Would there be any use for a "Weapons" category? I think it would be good to have all the weapons articles accessable via one page. What does anyone else think? zsingaya 08:08, 14 Jan 2005 (CET) ::I like it. We need to put it up for a community vote to apporve the naming of the category (to be sure it fits with what we are doing). Submit it at Memory Alpha talk:Category tree for evaluation, it should be able to get working on something like it soon. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:42, 14 Jan 2005 (CET) Looking for Star Trek the Magazine Hellow everyone. I was a huge fan of Star Trek the Magazine. However I missed 10 issues of the publication. Does anyone know where I could get the back issues? : I don't intend to feature advertising but what about this link: https://www.gefabbri.co.uk/startrek/index.asp?source=backcovers.asp BTW: Google came up with this! And doesn't Scott Bakula look like Gordon Freeman from "Half Life" on issue "November 2002"? -- Florian K 14:27, 15 Dec 2004 (CET) new MediaWiki version Hey, you've updated the MediaWiki with parameter "silent" instead of "verbose"! ;) I happen to see something like "Templeted used on page:" when editing this article and had a look on . There used to be something like "MediaWiki 1.3.4+", now it's 1.3.9. Are there any more killer features to know? -- Florian K 12:16, 16 Dec 2004 (CET) History, physiology, philosophy, etc articles Articles like Klingon Physiology, Ferengi History, Q Philosophy, Vulcan Mating Rituals etc. keep popping up on VfD.. is there any way we can create a more solid guideline for creating these articles so that they dont end up as graveyard fodder, and also the question has been asked: do they more rightfully belong at Klingon physiology, Ferengi history, Q philosophy and Vulcan mating (naming convention)? Dicussion? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:26, 16 Dec 2004 (CET) :With the exception of Vulcans, Klingons, and Ferengi, I don't think there is nearly enough information about the philosophy of any other species to justify a separate article; it's just clumsy when that information's not combined with the main species article in those cases. I also think that the history articles, with the exception of humans, are just redundant and should be merged with the history sections of respective articles (Cardassian History merged with Cardassians, Cardassian Union, and any separate articles like First Hebitian Civilization). I've argued for this before and I still think there's nothing covered in those history articles that wouldn't be covered in one or all of those other pages, which already repeat the information enough times for my taste. :For naming conventions, I think it should be "Klingon philosophy" rather than "Klingon Philosophy". Capitalizing a non-proper noun just bothers me because it pretends a formality that doesn't exist. -- EtaPiscium 20:38, 16 Dec 2004 (CET) For past discussions of this topic, please see: Talk:Interstellar History, Talk:Romulan History. Another good read is Wiki is not paper, especially the section "How long should the ideal article be?". If an article about X physiology would consist of two or three sentences, we don't need a separate article - but we don't necessarily need to restrict ourselves to one humongous article per species either; if we know enough about Romulan History, for example, why should we have to put everything on Romulan? Regarding capitalization: I agree, it should probably be lower-case. -- Cid Highwind 13:19, 17 Dec 2004 (CET) :And again my issue is with repetition and convenience. Undoubtedly any article about the Romulans would include something about history (it would probably be the biggest section), and so I see no need to separate it into a separate article. In fact I think that would be clumsy and redundant, because either a very vital part of the subject isn't readily accessible on the page or only a cursory summary is provided with a link to another page with a slightly less cursory summary. I don't see what's so wrong with just collecting the information on a single page, because certainly it's more convenient to simply scroll down an article rather than having to follow a separate link. At present, the histories provided at the pages such as Klingon Empire, Klingon, and Dominion are already more comprehensive than their respective history pages, which are woefully inadequate by comparison. -- EtaPiscium 00:39, 18 Dec 2004 (CET) ::Well, actually, as far as convenience goes, there's a lot of material duplicated between History on Klingon and Klingon Empire. Ideally, I think, each page should have a blurb and tell you to see more at Klingon history-- that's how I did it with Xindi and Xindi history. Now it may not be useful for all species, but the Klingons, Romulans, and so on could all do with separate history articles to keep things less cluttered. As for physiology and philosophy-- those could certainly belong to the main article, since we rarely know that much about those aspects of aliens. ::As a matter of note, if we don't count "sector" in things like Mutara sector as being a proper noun, we sure shouldn't count "History" in things like Xindi History. -- Steve 01:07, 18 Dec 2004 (CET) :::I've gone ahead and moved all "histories" to the lower case. Also, see Talk:History for more on how I envision these pages evolving. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel About the use of disambiguation pages Right now, there are several pages claiming to be "disambiguation pages" (DP), such as Alpha, Beta, Gamma... I don't know if these are really necessary (or valid DPs at all). In my opinion, a DP should be created only if there are several "objects" that are normally referred to using the same term. Enterprise, for example, is such a term, because it is used to refer to one of many starships as well as the latest series. Alpha, though, could be a disambiguation page for Alpha (Jem'Hadar), Alpha Quadrant and Alpha system and others, but definitely shouldn't include links to articles like Treaty of Alpha Cygnus IX (no one would refer to that treaty as simply "Alpha"). In this case, the search function of this wiki seems to be good enough (try searching for "Zeta", for example). -- Cid Highwind 12:55, 17 Dec 2004 (CET) :Yeah, this was occuring to me as I wrote Beta through Epsilon; Alpha was created by someone else (Mike maybe?) and that's what gave me the idea. Wikipedia, though, does do these basically the way we are right now: Wikipedia:Alpha, Wikipedia:Beta, &c. -- Steve 00:32, 18 Dec 2004 (CET) copyright on cover-texts? I found many copies of cover-texts of novels inside MA, for instance Time's Enemy or First Strike. Is that covered by the Memory Alpha:Copyrights? I always thought verbatim copy of any material should be avoided; I'm not quite sure if the back cover texts are ment to be copyrighted since it is a kind of advertisement. Is there someone with proofed knowledge about that? -- Florian K 18:55, 23 Dec 2004 (CET) Stardates While reading the 30th Anniversary Special Collector's Edition Star Trek book, I noticed some information on the Stardates that is not included in Memory-Alpha's "Stardate" entry. It mentions that the the digit following the decimal indicates one-tenth of a 24-hour period, logic dictating that a single unit is equal to one earth-day. This seems somewhat incongruous with the fact that the 3 digits preceding the decimal from 000 to 999 reveal the progression of a single earth year (although the book indicates that those 3 digits progress unevenly). Could someone else amend the Memory-Alpha entry to account for this info, despite its incongruities, I don't trust that I could improve the entry myself. Battle tactics and maneuvers I have no idea if there is where I am to post this, but it seems just as good a place as any. So far in my data collection I've noticed a few mentioned battle tactics, including: * Cochrane deceleration maneuver * Evasive maneuver * ''Kavis Teke'' elusive maneuver * Kumeh maneuver * Passive Lure stratagem * Picard Maneuver * Riker Maneuver * Talupian stratagem ...then of course we have all the "Evasive maneuvers! Pattern Delta!", for example, type tactics. Is there some way we can employ all of these into one topic rather than to let them all linger on their own (once articles are established, that is)? I know the "Pattern Delta" or "Pattern Omega" commands are pretty generic, but Sisko actually explains what a "Pattern Delta" (or something of the like) is in DS9: "Shattered Mirror". How might I go about presenting this in an article without simply making a list...or is that about the only option I have (making a list, that is)?? Thanks. --Gvsualan 06:26, 28 Dec 2004 (CET) Isn't "Pattern Delta" an evasive maneuver? The way I see it, evasive maneuvers covers terms like PD, but "pattern delta" is a combination of moves which is probably part of the Starfleet Academy curriculum, and its just a shorter way of saying the moves it encompases. Maybe you should start a page called Evasive Maneuvers? --Defiant : Good point. --Gvsualan 22:14, 30 Dec 2004 (CET) Stars and Star systems What is the actual added value of all those stub-sized ___ system articles? Take for example Regulus and Regulan system. I was looking at Regulus, and to get to Regulus III, I first have to click on Regulan system, which has zero information and just links to the planets. I expected to find these links on the article on the star Regulus. Then there is the information on the Battle of Regulus, which is only linked in Regulus, not in Regulan system, leading to more confusion and discussion. Why not simply combine these two typed of articles? Neither of these articles are ever going to be very long. Even Sol, likely the biggest star/star system article we'll ever have, are just two small articles at the moment. -- Harry 23:34, 6 Jan 2005 (CET) :The original idea was to separate the "star" from the "system", I think - about a year ago, we started adding all those bits of real astronomical information to articles about stars, and at that point it seemed like a good idea (at least to me) to have a separate article about those "brand name" stars. In these cases, I still think that "star articles" are a good idea. At the same time, we needed the "X system" articles, both because these article titles often were terms used in the episodes and because we simply didn't know (or could only assume) the names of the respective stars. While I still believe that this (having the possibility of both the "star" and "star system" articles) is necessary and a good idea, I agree that this system got out of control somewhat. The best example of this is the list of stars and stellar bodies which is more than just a little messy in my opinion. In short, any form of cleanup would be nice, but we can't simply remove either all "star" articles or all "star system" articles. -- Cid Highwind 23:59, 2005 Jan 6 (CET) ::Some of them could do without.. i'd still say that every star X that has a system should have an 'X system' redirect should there not be a necessity for a system article. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel ::I think we need to narrow down the policy, and only allow 'X system' articles for references for which we don't know the name of the primary (like Goren system, which could strictly speaking also be a planetary system or even a starcluster, judging by the sometimes confusing language). But confirmed stars should not have a separate 'X system' article, and we should use a redirect in these cases. To summarize: ::# If we have no further information on a system, and the primary of the system is not a known object, put the article at __ system. ::# Otherwise, if the primary is known, link to that article or use a __ system redirect. ::Articles like Devron system are good examples of #1, but cases like Regulus and Alpha Centauri need cleaning up. -- Harry 14:32, 7 Jan 2005 (CET) :::I think the rule of thumb is that any system where the system name and the star name are identical should go under the star article. This works well, for example, that Altair is the main article and Altair system simply redirects back to it. The only separate "system" articles that could and should remain in this case are those where the name of the star is unknown or unlisted, or when the system has a separate name from the star. The last system article possible under the new rule would be a tiered system: the Alpha Centauri system has three stars, each with its own separate system (a subsystem?). -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:10, 9 Jan 2005 (CET) :::User:EtaPiscium is concerned (Talk:Vico (star)) about the number of redirects this will create. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:12, 10 Jan 2005 (CET) :::::What I propose instead is that only star systems where the star is known and is the same as the system name should be combined with the star systems. That means star systems around real stars (i.e. "Acamar system") would be under "Acamar", as would systems where the star is known (i.e. "Monac"/"Monac system") For systems whose parent stars have never been mentioned (i.e. "Volon system"), I recommend the article stay under "Volon system" because there is no possibility that another article will ever link to just "Volon". That will cut down on the number of redirects enormously, since we know of many systems only through their planets (i.e. "Narendra IV"/"Narendra system") and through them the star ("Narendra"), and there's no need to have a redirect when any conceivable reference to the system will linked to "Narendra system" and not "Narendra". -- EtaPiscium 21:24, 10 Jan 2005 (CET) :::I simply think that I prefer the simpler names.. as you can see from Talk:Vico (star). If an article's main home resides at the simpler name as a rule, it will be a lot easier to link to about three-quarters of the star / system articles on this site, by keeping them in one main name form, with the separate solar system names that exist only when absolutely necessary. I don't think it makes much of an issue if 10 articles link to a Vico system redirect and only 2 or so link to Vico (star) -- because they all end up at the same article. Wiki naming conventions suggest the simpler article name and support an infrastructure of useful redirects anyway, i'm saying we use it. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:48, 10 Jan 2005 (CET) ::::The problem is that there will be no articles that link to "Vico (star)" because it's never been mentioned, nor is "Vico (star)" particularly convenient a link because of the qualifier attached to it. The simplest name is not always the best one; I think that the most logical name is best. In the case of Vico, when I'm writing about the Vico system because it's mentioned in the episode, the obvious thought is to link it to "Vico system", rather than having to make a jump to "Vico (star)", which somebody might not even think of because it's non-intuitive to link to the star when you're talking about the system. If all the systems we know of are instead switched to their stars, there'll be a bunch of broken links from people who're writing and believe that "X system" is the correct nomenclature, that'll either have to be fixed or changed to a redirect. I don't see why we have to implement a system that makes it more difficult for people to put in the correct links. -- EtaPiscium 00:12, 11 Jan 2005 (CET) :::I agree with both of you. In the case of Vico, there's enough evidence that Vico is a star. In the case of Volon, there is not. I don't agree with the Narendra example. What's the point of the Narendra system page? There is only one planet, Narendra III, and we know absolutely nothing about the Narendra system apart from that. I suggest we don't make ___ system pages for every minor planet with Roman numerals. -- Harry 22:06, 10 Jan 2005 (CET) ::::Unfortunately there're already a bunch of them out there since a while ago I was looking at edits people made to my planet articles and I started assuming that was the protocol for all planets with Roman numerals. -- EtaPiscium 00:14, 11 Jan 2005 (CET) :This seems to become even more complicated than I feared... Some questions I asked myself when reading this discussion were: :*'Which pages are necessary?' I think that each "object" that was mentioned deserves a page - even if it is a redirect page to another article (which makes sense in some cases, of course). Regarding the "Vico"-issue, this means that both "Vico _" (whatever numeral was used in this case) and "Vico system" deserve to exist, while "Vico" is just an assumed title - a good assumption, but still an assumption. :*'What is the ''simplest title?' I agree that articles should exist at a "most simple" title, but what is or isn't "simple" depends on the context. If "Vico system" was mentioned in an episode and "Vico" was not, can the latter one really be the "simplest title"? If "Vico" even is a disambiguation page, does it really make sense to use "Vico (star)" instead of "Vico system"? :There are good arguments for both sides - what we will most probably end up with is a mess of both "star" and "star system" articles, with additional redirects to and from both. It simply isn't possible to create ''only star articles or only star system articles (although it would be nice, for example when trying to categorize all these). I don't have an easy solution, but I'm unsure if we should simply continue deleting some of the existing pages at the moment... -- Cid Highwind 01:16, 2005 Jan 11 (CET) :Additional note regarding categorization: Please keep in mind that it is not possible to categorize redirects. If we ever want to have a "Category:Stars" or a "Category:Star systems", it might be a good idea to not have a redirect at that article title. Perhaps the idea of having both articles (if both are known or can at least be reasonably assumed, of course) isn't that bad after all? Perhaps we should just update the relevant templates to avoid extraneous clicks (as described in the initial post) instead... -- Cid Highwind 11:50, 2005 Jan 11 (CET) Active discussions on other pages I recently started two discussions regarding the "maintenance" of MA. It would be nice if some of you would take the time to read these suggestions and comment on those pages: *Memory Alpha talk:Image use policy - Should we have stricter rules for image filenames? *Memory Alpha talk:Find or fix a stub - Does make any sense in its current form? Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 20:39, 2005 Jan 16 (CET) Fairuse on startrek.com pictures? Is the usage of pictures from startrek.com covered by fair use? I'm asking because of a possible copyright violation at MA/de. -- Florian K 12:19, 19 Jan 2005 (CET) Uniforms inbetween established Trek eras. I've always imagined that the uniforms inbetween TOS and TMP were different. My reasoning is simply this: The uniforms in TMP are a lot different than those in TOS. So I've been designing "interim" uniforms that MAY have been worn inbetween different eras of Trek (i.e between TMP and TWOK). Anyone interested in those designs? My e-mail is: onceonfire@juno.com. Stellar Cartography. I think there should be a page for the room, seen in Generations, rather than just having a page on what people do there! I don't mind the latter page being on here (I'm not saying that we should get rid of it!), but I also think there should be a page for the room where Picard and Data talk. Unless "Astrometrics" was adapted to include this information, but (to the best of my knowledge) stellar cartography was never refered to as 'astrometrics'. In his log entry, Picard says that he and Data will meet in 'stellar cartography'. -- Defiant, 23 Jan 2005 Groups of pages needing attention Since these comments refer to complete groups of articles instead of single pages, I'm moving these comments from Memory Alpha:Pages needing attention to this discussion page. If you think that individual articles "need attention", feel free to add the appropriate template. -- Cid Highwind 15:17, 2005 Jan 23 (CET) ---- *Pages linked to in List of drugs and treatments. Most pages linked through here don't conform to style and are missing sources, references or any other clue as to where in Star Trek it was ever mentioned. -- Redge 20:45, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Most pages linked to by Government and Politics. A lot of articles linked through here mistake Race and Politic, giving the article the name of the government body and then writing about the species itself, or the other way around. -- Redge 23:24, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Many of the pages linked to by Language. Many of the longer pages have improper POV, poor organization, and massive amounts of speculation. -- EtaPiscium 03:26, 2 Dec 2004 (CET) The Star Trek DVD's I was wondering if a page should be created with information on the six series DVD releases.-Rebelstrike2005 23:59, 28 Jan 2005 (CET) :That could be very useful. Actually, some sort of category containing information on releases of all kinds would be great, ie VHS, DVD, DVD/spec ed., etc. I don't know if this should be separate or listed in the same article as a film/episode, or perhaps both. A separate page is probably best, to avoid a feel of advertising. The extent of this info could also be discussed. -- Toddas 00:36, 30 Jan 2005 (CET) ::I think it would be most appropriate to add information of that kind to the "Background information" sections of the "season" articles (such as: TNG Season 1). -- Cid Highwind 13:37, 2005 Jan 30 (CET) ::: I also noticed that at Star Trek.com episode guides they now say what DVD number the episode is on-Rebelstrike2005 16:01, 30 Jan 2005 (CET) Can I go ahead and add DVD information to the various seasons then? - Rebelstrike2005 20:14, 30 Jan 2005 (CET) :Go ahead, I'd say - we could still move that information to another page later, although I think that this won't be necessary. -- Cid Highwind 22:09, 2005 Jan 30 (CET) Could I talk about the various special features as well?-Rebelstrike2005 22:05, 3 Feb 2005 (CET) I added the DVD info to the seven DS9 seasons. Let me know what you think.-Rebelstrike2005 13:11, 5 Feb 2005 (CET) Why can I edit this page? Email me at - gil (a) disatnik (dot) com :Don't worry :) Memory Alpha is a wiki, which, in a nutshell, means that everyone can edit anything. This might sound strange at first, but everything you see on Memory Alpha was written by the community. You're welcome to try out for yourself in the Sandbox. -- Harry 23:16, 29 Jan 2005 (CET) Suggestion for a new article I have been wondering , would it be suitable for creating an article about Star Trek fashion? Someone could lists species and add pictures about the things they wear. I think it would be a nice addition to the MA. Costume designers of Star Trek have done a great job at designing clothes for all. Episode References I see everywhere differing styles of referencing episodes; and cannot find in the Manual of Style anything specific that denotes what the SOP is. Personally, on the articles I've worked on, I use: : In-Line: (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint") : or as a list: * VOY: "Caretaker" And while I ensure to maintain continuity within my own articular contributions; I do not see that within MA as a whole. I would like to keep an eye out and make conformation when I need to refarding episode references, but need first to know what the standard is. | THOR 21:38, 3 Feb 2005 (CET) : It won't help you when I tell you from the german Memory Alpha. I can't remind me of any rule of style that tells me how to arrange such references and so everyone has his own style. I once brought up the very same issue on the german 10F which led to (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint"); italic to emphase on the meta-trek nature and quto-marks for titles. -- Florian K 11:13, 8 Feb 2005 (CET) The Romulan raptor What would be a good title for this ship? Raptor type? or just Raptor (Romulan)? : Well, we only know there's one of them, so a class page wouldn't be right. Raptor (Romulan starship) would be an acceptable disambiguation, with Raptor as a disambig page pointing to it and Raptor class. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 20:26, Feb 4, 2005 (CET) Acts Could sections of lengthy summaries for episodes be aranged under the heading of 'act's, such as Act One - Act Five? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 20:55, 4 Feb 2005 (CET) :My thoughts on this matter are already established at Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles - I believe that on most summaries, they will distract from the text, and break up the flow of the storyline too much. I try to signify the end of an act with an ellipsis (...) to establish the FADE OUT: typical at the act break (cf Sacrifice of Angels). In addition, some summaries are too short for this to be effective, as the subsections are too small. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 21:04, Feb 4, 2005 (CET) ::Which is why I wrote "lengthy" in the earlier post - if you read it, you'd see that! I tried to nominate an episode page earlier (see "Emergence"), but was told that it should be broken down into sub-headings. So should they or should they not be? If not, why isn't "Emergence" a featured page, yet? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 21:13, 4 Feb 2005 (CET) :::It's been supported, so it will be when we get around to adding it! As Tyrant said, his request for sub-headings is personal preference, as is my opposition to it. It did not stop him supporting it, as my dislike was not my reason for opposing Babel One. If you think your summaries work better with subheadings, fine, but each author has their own style of writing and arranging summaries, and I would not force people to such a rigid layout that may impede that. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 21:19, Feb 4, 2005 (CET) ::::Okay, thanks for clearing that up and I'm looking forward to "Emergence" becoming a featured article.--Defiant | ''Talk'' 21:24, 4 Feb 2005 (CET) No double reference It's not a good style to keep linking one keyword again and again, for expample having Jean-Luc Picard linked inside an episode each time Jean-Luc appears. I read that sometime ago on a talk-page but this isn't an official policy nor is it issued in one of our . Can anyone help me find a MA-resource that makes this "rule of thumb" more "offical"? -- Florian K 22:23, 5 Feb 2005 (CET) In addition to my above request for clarification on Episode References, I agree that this is something that needs an SOP dictated on. I always ensure not to duplicate my linking on any given pages, and occasionally I edit others' pages to conform to the same; but I am reluctant to do so frequently as I don't know what the rules govening such are. | THOR 20:51, 7 Feb 2005 (CET) Featured pages Why does it take so long for these to be added to the list of featured pages? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 20:38, 9 Feb 2005 (CET) Teleporting to New Dimensions A warm welcome to Memory Alpha from Tmxxineto the Wiki Cities family. Just like the reality of Star Trek we are moving from the potential reality into the actual. Our initial phase is to enable broadcast between time continuums. Then we will move into teleportation. Are other members interested in the implementation of star trek technologies? For example Nasa and the ESA both have warp drive (or similar) projects in the planning phase (they are looking at ideas). How does fantasy generate reality? Style question Quick question - is anyone else missing the horizontal line between the page title header, and "From Memory Alpha,..."? It seems to have disappeared for me some time since the server move, and I can't see how to get it back, having looked through my Monobook.css and the general site one. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 18:36, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT) : I've also noticed this -- another thing: all the links contained in the quicklinks and special pages usually point at http://memory-alpha.org , but that address has no response -- the only way to stay on the site is to type the www onto the address bar after youve failed to reach the esired page - http://www.memory-alpha.org is the only site that responds. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 18:41, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT) ::That's odd, the address is working fine for me (I'm using it right now). The only thing I can think of is your DNS may not be fully updated yet - I did have some problems with that URL not connecting earlier. As for the hr, I was about to send an email to one of the Wikicities tech people, but I thought I'd check to see if it was just me first. I'll see if anyone else checks in with an affirmative, then get onto them. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 18:50, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT) I can help you find the line. You can add one of the following lines to your monobook.css: #siteSub { border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; } (will have a line above "from Memory Alpha..."; that's a crude bugfix, but looks the same) OR #bodyContent { background : none; } (solution by Benutzer:FProg; the empty layer "bodyContent" blocks the line from beeing visible. If you'd extend the line, which is attached to each header to 3 or more px, you could see it. Making the layer invisible would bring it back). In the german monobook I implemented the first version because I don't like to "hide" layers I don't know personal. -- Florian - 19:20, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT) :I'll add the second one to the general Monobook.css now - if there are problems, we can replace it with the cruder fix. Thanks, Florian. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 19:24, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT) :: Please add your updates from MediaWiki:Monobook.css to MediaWiki:Monobook.css/de for us german users. -- Florian - '' '' 15:40, 12 Feb 2005 (GMT) War *Could a page be created with links to all the various wars that have occurred? Would it be best as a disambiguation page or simply a list of wars?-Rebelstrike2005 21:19, 13 Feb 2005 (GMT) **Good idea, perhaps a List of wars and battles? Tyrant 21:23, 13 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant ***List of wars and battles it is! Thanks!-Rebelstrike2005 21:26, 13 Feb 2005 (GMT) **Lets not forget campaigns and skirmishs.... --Gvsualan 22:25, 13 Feb 2005 (GMT)